AMD CTO Mark Papermaster: More Cores Coming in the 'Era of a Slowed Moore's Law'

Zarathustra[H] said:
Nope.

It's a fine engine, just suggesting that some of the reason is that the games running on the engine don't necessarily stress the hardware as hard as others do.

All that said, John Carmack hasn't always been right about things. For instance, he was - for a long time - an opponent of using hardware 3D acceleration in games (like with Glide or Direct 3D) claiming that software rendering was the only way to do it right :p

He also was lead on the engine development for Rage which was widely panned for its texture issues due to trying to render with dynamic quality in order to keep framerate constant.

He has been hugely influential in getting us to where games are today, but no one is perfect :p
Click to expand...


Wow so you've deviated all over the place again. ok. What does this have to do with more cores? Anyways the beauty of the Rage engine (idtech5) was cross platform. Microsoft Windows, OS X, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Wow so you've deviated all over the place again. ok. What does this have to do with more cores?
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing. I was replying to a post about engines and how well they work.


Mega6 said:
Wow so you've deviated all over the place again. ok. What does this have to do with more cores?
Click to expand...
Anyways the beauty of the Rage engine (idtech5) was cross platform. Microsoft Windows, OS X, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily consider that an asset.

If I think back over the last 25 years and recount my favorite titles, not a single one ran on any other hardware than the PC. Sadly there haven't been as many in later years.

There is something inherent about making a game for a console that makes it less interesting, and its not just the lowest common denominator graphics. It's like they dumb everything down to the level of a less intellectually capable player.

PC exclusives of yore have always felt rich and complex, compared to the mostly shallow and uninteresting console and cross-platform titles out there.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
All that said, John Carmack hasn't always been right about things. For instance, he was - for a long time - an opponent of using hardware 3D acceleration in games (like with Glide or Direct 3D) claiming that software rendering was the only way to do it right :p
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem right. IIRC Quake was considered the Killer App for the first 3DFX cards.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Absolutely nothing. I was replying to a post about engines and how well they work.


I don't necessarily consider that an asset.

If I think back over the last 25 years and recount my favorite titles, not a single one ran on any other hardware than the PC. Sadly there haven't been as many in later years.

There is something inherent about making a game for a console that makes it less interesting, and its not just the lowest common denominator graphics. It's like they dumb everything down to the level of a less intellectually capable player.

PC exclusives of yore have always felt rich and complex, compared to the mostly shallow and uninteresting console and cross-platform titles out there.
Click to expand...

You don't consider it an asset, however it was a priority for id obviously - to market the engine to many as many game companies as possible. Back to your original point, yeah it's not as fancy as other games probably because of cross-platform compromises, Different Engines have different goals. PC only code is more rich and targeted, also becoming more rare it seems.
 
Snowdog said:
That doesn't seem right. IIRC Quake was considered the Killer App for the first 3DFX cards.
Click to expand...

Not at first. 3Dfx had to create a wrapper for Glide so that the limited subset of OpenGL that Quake used would run.
 
Mega6 said:
OpenGL Acceleration, Carnack loved it. Hated MS directx and avoided it as long as possible.
Click to expand...

He eventually warmed up to OpenGL, but in the beginning he had hardcore convictions when it came to his CPU based software rendering methodology.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
He eventually warmed up to OpenGL, but in the beginning he had hardcore convictions when it came to his CPU based software rendering methodology.
Click to expand...

Not exactly,

Carmack used hardware acceleration, he just chose Verite first but it didn't work out. Moving to OpenGL eventually.

Show me anything that says Carmack was against Hardware Acceleration.

"VQuake is a source port of Quake that was specifically designed for use with the Rendition Vérité V1000 accelerator. The oldest known source port, VQuake was originally released as Beta 10 on December 2, 1996. VQuake was the first version of Quake to have hardware acceleration, coming out more than a month earlier than the earliest version of GLQuake. John Carmack felt that Vérité provided the best performance per dollar at the time, resulting in the effort by him and chipset maker Rendition to make this the premium Quake experience. Carmack later regretted this choice, finding programming on the Vérité to be frustrating, which resulted in his support for non-propitiatory APIs such as Direct3D and OpenGL (the former of which he later became frustrated with as well, resulting in his full support for OpenGL)."
 
Multi tasking benefits too, so long as the OS can distribute the load properly and the app doesn't freak out from it.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Not at first. 3Dfx had to create a wrapper for Glide so that the limited subset of OpenGL that Quake used would run.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean Carmack was against 3D acceleration, especially using common APIs. Quake came out before 3DFX cards, so of course there wasn't initial support.

What actually happened: Carmack wrote a version of quake to support the Rendition Verite chipset, it released around the same time as 3DFX cards. It turned out to be kind of waste, so he vowed to avoid proprietary APIs. This is nowhere near the same thing as being against hardware acceleration.

He next wrote QuakeGL using the OpenGL, a non-proprietary 3D API. 3DFX then wrote MiniGL so they could accelerate QuakeGL, other companies also wrote MiniGL drivers (easier than supporting full OpenGL).

Carmack was not against 3D HW, he was only against proprietary APIs after a bad experience.
 
Snowdog said:
That doesn't mean Carmack was against 3D acceleration, especially using common APIs. Quake came out before 3DFX cards, so of course there wasn't initial support.

What actually happened: Carmack wrote a version of quake to support the Rendition Verite chipset, it released around the same time as 3DFX cards. It turned out to be kind of waste, so he vowed to avoid proprietary APIs. This is nowhere near the same thing as being against hardware acceleration.

He next wrote QuakeGL using the OpenGL, a non-proprietary 3D API. 3DFX then wrote MiniGL so they could accelerate QuakeGL, other companies also wrote MiniGL drivers (easier than supporting full OpenGL).

Carmack was not against 3D HW, he was only against proprietary APIs after a bad experience.
Click to expand...

This makes more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Absolutely nothing. I was replying to a post about engines and how well they work.



Anyways the beauty of the Rage engine (idtech5) was cross platform. Microsoft Windows, OS X, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily consider that an asset.

If I think back over the last 25 years and recount my favorite titles, not a single one ran on any other hardware than the PC. Sadly there haven't been as many in later years.

There is something inherent about making a game for a console that makes it less interesting, and its not just the lowest common denominator graphics. It's like they dumb everything down to the level of a less intellectually capable player.

PC exclusives of yore have always felt rich and complex, compared to the mostly shallow and uninteresting console and cross-platform titles out there.[/QUOTE]

Your equating a less intellectually capable player and a console player as the same thing is just dumb. PC games today or exclusives feel no where near rich and complex in to comparison with former years, in many ways. Who cares though because being a elitist is a complete waste of time.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
On the 1080Ti in my sig, that's what's wrong!

Or perhaps DICE doesn't make game engines that are as responsive as what comes out of id software.
Click to expand...

Frostbite is far more sophisticated than ID's engine and it is a true scalable game. You are probably pushing to high settings especially for multiplayer which hammers the CPU
 
N4CR said:
Yes that's why all the gaming consoles have had 8 cores for years!
Click to expand...
The Xbox One originally limited the number of cores available to games to 5. The current version allows up to 7 to be used. The PlayStation 4 has always been limited to 7, as far as I know.
Mega6 said:
OpenGL Acceleration, Carmack loved it. Hated MS directx and avoided it as long as possible.
Click to expand...
No id Tech engine has ever used DirectX, even after Carmack left. The current head of engine development at id worked on CryEngine and they're still using OpenGL/Vulkan. Even the input libraries use SDL. Xinput was added starting with the BFG Edition of Doom 3, but that is a standalone library that doesn't rely on DirectX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top